This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. This site is and always will be advert free and I do not expect you to pay me. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07)

Thursday, 31 March 2016

Oil Price, 22 March 2016 By Global Risk InsightsThe world focused its attention recently on Cheniere and the United States’ first liquid natural gas export. But the more telling story actually lies behind the scenes and stems from the state-controlled Russian corporation Gazprom. Over the course of the past six months, the company has begun to experiment with what it deems to be a new pricing strategy driven by conventional market forces, in which the company auctions off natural gas in a competitive marketplace.

Gazprom is effectively deviating from their standard pricing convention, whereby the commodity’s price is indexed or linked to oil via a long-term contract. While it is true that this week’s announcement focuses only on a small sub-sector of the company’s clientele — the Baltic States of Lithuania and Latvia — the geopolitical implications are profound.Impact of the shale boom Across commodities, the influence of the shale boom has been felt from Riyadh to Moscow, and things aren’t changing any time soon. The United States’ shale boom, coupled with the output of other countries such as Australia, has afforded the United States and other countries the opportunity to now source their natural gas from a more competitive marketplace.

As a result of this increasingly competitive landscape, global prices have converged, as a consumer’s location is no longer as important in dictating the price they receive as it once was.

Ultimately, the influx of producers from the United States and Australia has suppressed the arbitrage opportunities that previously existed based on geography. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region and proximate to Russia are paying a premium.

The tightening of global prices over the past year and a projection through December 2018. Source: Timera Energy

Outside of the overall price convergence, the latest moves by Gazprom are one of the first signs that the geopolitical implications of gas production increases are coming to fruition.

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Bloomberg, 18 March 2016 Javier BlasThree months since the U.S. lifted a 40-year ban on oil exports, American crude is flowing to virtually every corner of the market and reshaping the world’s energy map. Overseas sales, which started on Dec. 31 with a small cargo aboard the Theo T tanker, have been picking up speed. Oil companies including Exxon Mobil Corp and China Petroleum and Chemical Corp have joined independent traders such as Vitol Group and Trafigura Pte in exporting American crude.

The "growing volumes of exports" from the U.S. are now "spooking the markets," Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at consultants Energy Aspects Ltd. in London, said in a note. The "flurry of export activity" is helping to support spot oil prices in the U.S. relative to contracts for later delivery, she wrote.

With American stockpiles at unprecedented levels, oil tankers laden with U.S. crude have docked in, or are heading to, countries including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, China and Panama. Oil traders said other destinations are likely, just as supplies in Europe and the Mediterranean region are also increasing.

Small Scale

That said, the U.S. is likely to remain for the foreseeable future a small exporter compared with OPEC giants Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq and non-OPEC producers Mexico and Russia. Ian Taylor, chief executive of Vitol, the company behind the first export, believes exports will remain a "very marginal business.”

Tuesday, 29 March 2016

UPI, 23 March 2016 Daniel J. GraeberU.S. natural gas production is on the rise, with some reserve areas in the country’s Northeast getting more output from fewer wells, an industry report found. “The natural gas production record achieved in February is largely attributed to the Northeast, which also is still helping offset the declines seen in other major U.S. basins,” Sami Yahya, a Platts Bentek energy analyst, said in an emailed statement.

Platts Bentek, a forecasting unity for energy reporting service Platts, reported February natural gas production in the Lower 48 U.S. states was 73.3 billion cubic feet per day, up nearly 2 percent from January.

According to its estimates, the February gas output level is the highest since it started keeping records in 2005.

The increase in production comes as most energy companies are scaling back on investments in the upstream sector in response to lower crude oil prices. Rig counts, which serve as a barometer for the health of the industry, have been in steady decline.

Monday, 28 March 2016

The Gatwick Gusher has produced the highest flow rates of any onshore wildcat well in the UK, matching the kind of levels normally seen in the North Sea, its majority owner UK Oil & Gas said. The exploration company said it had completed its final test at Horse Hill, just north of Gatwick Airport, and that the aggregate flow from three layers of oil-bearing rock had been 1,688 barrels per day. “The flow test results are outstanding, demonstrating North Sea-like oil rates from an onshore well,” said UKOG executive chairman Steve Sanderson. “This simple vertical well has achieved an impressive aggregate oil rate equivalent to 8.5 per cent of total UK onshore daily oil production. --Nick Goodway, The Independent, 22 March 2016

Sunday, 27 March 2016

This letter contains a lot of common sense and I can see why the government run weather bureau (CSIRO) of Australia will ignore it. Until scientists are free to reach whatever conclusions their research leads them to it will be useless and we will all suffer the consequences.

Saturday, 26 March 2016

UK voters learned recently that the government were seriously considering ramping up the Climate Change Act target from an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050 to a 100% cut by 2050. We now learn that such a move is being put into a government bill in Germany - see here for the details. Personally I doubt if any government in a democracy could survive getting to 60% cuts, let alone 100%, but the fall out from even attempting this will cause untold misery for the people of that nation.

Friday, 25 March 2016

Christopher Booker has highlighted a new development in our mad energy policy, inherited from Labour. Here is the article in which he refers to a new commitment, apparently made by the current minister in charge of our energy policy, Andrea Leadsom. Mrs Leadsom believes we should leave the EU and her expertise is in economics, but she now seems to have embraced the climate narrative and so has committed the UK to reduce CO2 emissions to 100% by 2050. Of course this is simply pie in the sky. She will have left office long before and it will fall to her successors to end the madness at some point to save the country from bankruptcy.

Thursday, 24 March 2016

Brexit (British exit from the EU) is likely to threaten the Paris climate change agreement says Lord Deben, who is the chairman of the UK Committee on Climate Change, a supposedly independent advisory panel which gives advice to the UK government. If only it were true. I suppose it might have some effect, if the present UK leadership were forced to resign in favour of a more sceptical wing of the Conservative Party. If so it is one more good reason to vote to leave in June's referendum.

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Here is an article giving some indications of Donald Trump's energy policy ideas. I think the article is meant to be derogatory of Trump, but personally I thought his ideas were very sensible. The only question is - can he win? The real disaster is if Hillary Clinton were to win.

Tuesday, 22 March 2016

We are constantly being told by the climate alarmists that CO2 is responsible for any , or all of the extreme weather that is happening in the world, but what about the weather extremes that are happening less frequently in recent times?

Luckily we now have the answer, thanks to Paul Homewood, and here is the information. I look forward to seeing it on a TV documentary, though I fear I may be disappointed.

Monday, 21 March 2016

Trees can adapt to rising temperatures and limit their natural emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a study published on Wednesday that suggests plants may have a smaller than expected role in stoking man-made global warming.

Trees, plants, people and other animals produce carbon dioxide as a waste product from burning energy. As temperatures rise, trees use more energy in respiration and emit more carbon dioxide from their leaves.

“Plant respiration results in an annual flux of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that is six times as large as that due to the emissions from fossil fuel burning, so changes in either will impact future climate,” scientists wrote in the journal Nature.

They found that 10 types of North American trees, in artificially heated outdoor forest plots, adapted to higher temperatures without drastically boosting the amount of carbon produced by their leaves.

“Plants play less of a role than previously thought in speeding up global warming through accelerated respiratory carbon dioxide emissions,” lead author Peter Reich of the University of Minnesota told an online news conference. “Given the number of plants on Earth this is a big deal,” he said of their role in the carbon cycle.

Apart from respiration, trees also absorb carbon dioxide to build roots, branches and leaves, and release it when they rot or burn. The study, and other experts, cautioned that the research only focused on respiration by leaves.

Sunday, 20 March 2016

Poland adopted a resolution against stepping up European Union climate ambitions, hardening its opposition to stricter emission policies before negotiations about how the bloc’s 28 member states should share the burden of cutting pollution in the next decade.

The Law and Justice government, which took power after general elections in October, said current EU greenhouse-gas reduction goals already require “huge investment effort” from Poland to modernize its energy sector. Europe has a binding target of lowering emissions by 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels. National leaders in the European Council agreed in October 2014 to a 40 percent cut by 2030, an aim that yet needs to be translated into detailed legislation.

The resolution by Poland, which relies on coal for more than 80 percent of its electricity production, comes after EU nations including Germany and Luxembourg called earlier this month for more ambition following a global climate deal in Paris in December. The European Commission, the EU’s regulatory arm, stopped short of recommending an immediate move to stricter targets for 2030, saying instead that member states should now focus on enacting measures to reach existing goals.

“Some member states are bringing forward proposal on the EU forum to toughen European climate policy goals and deepen the greenhouse-gas reduction levels,” the Polish government said in a statement. “The government strongly advocates that the EU concentrate on implementing climate commitments already approved by the European Council.”

Saturday, 19 March 2016

If that heading doesn't boost the hit rating then nothing will! Below is a piece of completely bonkers information, and yet someone actually got grant funding to study it. It is even more bonkers than that icon of pointless so-called "art", Tracey Emin's unmade bed. There is clearly too much money available to some of those issuing grant funding. 50 Shades Of Ice: The Settled Science Of Grant SnafflingQuadrant, 15 March 2016 Tony ThomasFeminist glacier studies, an expanding field of academic climate-science rigor, sometimes needs an R-rating. Like this new feminist glacier research from a team led by Professor Mark Carey at the University of Oregon. Carey scored a $US413,000 grant in 2013 for his glacier research, with the paper being one output from it. It is titled “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research.” The epic, 15,000-word monograph cites Sheryl St Germain’s obscure, 2001 novel, To Drink a Glacier, where the author is in the throes of her midlife sexual awakening. She “interprets her experiences with Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier as sexual and intimate. When she drinks the glacier’s water, she reflects:That drink is like a kiss, a kiss that takes in the entire body of the other … like some wondrous omnipotent liquid tongue, touching our own tongues all over, the roofs and sides of our mouths, then moving in us and through to where it knows … I swallow, trying to make the spiritual, sexual sweetness of it last. Continuing in the tradition of 50 Shades of Ice, the paper further cites Uzma Aslam Khan’s (2010) short story ‘Ice, Mating’. The storyexplores religious, nationalistic, and colonial themes in Pakistan, while also featuring intense sexual symbolism of glaciers acting upon a landscape. Khan writes: ‘It was Farhana who told me that Pakistan has more glaciers than anywhere outside the poles. And I’ve seen them! I’ve even seen them fuck!’ (emphasis in original)

Icy conditions normally inhibit tumescence, but the paper’s four authors (two of them men, but writing through “the feminist lens”) seem to be in a state of sustained arousal. To them, even ice core drilling evokes coital imagery:Structures of power and domination also stimulated the first large-scale ice core drilling projects – these archetypal masculinist projects to literally penetrate glaciers and extract for measurement and exploitation the ice in Greenland and Antarctica. The study quotes feminist artists and suggests that satellite and aerial imaging of glaciers, rather than involving scientific credibility and accuracy, is actually a masculine construct and “reminiscent of detached, voyeuristic, ‘pornographic’ images.” It continues, “Such a gaze has been troubled by feminist researchers who argue that the ‘conquering gaze’ makes an implicit claim on who has the power to see and not be seen.”

In passing, the study notes that climate change “can lead to the breakdown of stereotypical gender roles and even ‘gender renegotiation’ (Godden, 2013).” This had me worried as I prefer to stay with my male gender.

Friday, 18 March 2016

DON’T believe computer prophets of doom, writes Dr Keith P Dawson, vice President at the Scottish Society of Crop Research

Last month’s major scientific breakthrough was rightly lauded; Einstein’s century-old gravitational wave theories proved correct. How will we view current theoretical climate science in 2100? Will there be global headlines confirming validity or a consigning to history’s dustbin?

So far prospects are worrying, with climate computer predictions, on which costly taxpayer-funded policies are based, well wide of measured reality. In terms of temperature increase, ocean acidification, sea levels and polar ice, predictions have massively exaggerated what is happening. Polar ice and bear populations are now larger than when Al Gore made doomsday predictions ten years ago. This is the year Arctic ice vanishes completely, remember?

The “burning” question is the real extent to which CO2 influences global temperature. There was cynical “rebranding” of global warming as “new improved” climate change; when it became clear measured data showed no significant global warming since 1998 and still doesn’t. This despite models predicting large increases and CO2 increasing over the period, so why trust future predictions; up or down? The sensitivity of models to CO2 is now challenged, they may “run hot” by up to 300 per cent, models ignore clouds, key climate factors.

There’s a big difference between climate and weather – despite perceptions global extreme weather damage is actually decreasing, as are climate-related deaths, according to the UN. El Nino was by far the most important 2015 factor, as in the warmer 1999 and 2011. Media sadly ignore the positive narrative.

So CO2: Hero or Villain? A pollutant according to the US EPA or celebrated as Patrick Moore, GreenPeace founder, suggests? Without CO2 Life on Earth dies. Without CO2, no green plants, no grazing animals, food chain or humans, no wonderful nature documentaries!

Parents with sick children rely on thermometers rather than computer models falsely running Hot. Despite the claims of data-manipulating activist-researchers and politicians, the science is not “settled”. By its very nature, science is never “settled” – the only people who claim that are non-scientists or charlatans or both. Scottish Government policies based on these models cost Scottish households significant and increasing sums. They drive the poor into food and fuel poverty and divert funds from healthcare, education and research, damaging industry through uncompetitive energy costs.

Since colleagues and I published pioneering research on greenhouse emissions in the early Eighties, the search for scientific truth has too often been hijacked by quests for funding and profile on the multi-trillion dollar climate gravy train. Let’s be clear: there is no such animal as a “Climate Change Denier” – who could deny impacts of climate change over millennia? Vikings cultivated Greenland, Romans tended Yorkshire grapes, even our glens testify to change – the only constant. Only flat-earthers deny change. The “denier” myth is a cynical activist construct to marginalise genuine questioning of the science, which should be welcomed. […]

Recent film The Big Short tells the true story of cynical herd behaviour by banks in the sub-prime market, causing the 2008 global economic collapse. Current climate science and politics has many of the hallmarks of the sub prime disaster. Once again, the gamble is taken with our money and hits the poorest hardest. Public faith in science will, tragically, be part of the collateral damage when the Emperor’s state of undress finally becomes evident. In a democracy people are entitled to their own opinions – but not to their own facts.

• Dr Keith P Dawson is vice President at the Scottish Society of Crop Research

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

This article by scientist Richard Lindzen discusses the issue of political leaders using science to promote their policies without any facts to back up what they are saying. He is right and this whole subjects brings science into disrepute.

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

That is the question that is being asked about the USA's Environmental Protection Agency that has been introducing climate change legislation by the backdoor, when the Senate would not support it. This article looks at this question and tries to find the answer.

Monday, 14 March 2016

Here is an interesting look at the evidence for CO2 causing dangerous climate warming. It confirms what we already suspect - that there is no good evidence for it. It is a very thorough look at the evidence and well worth reading.

Sunday, 13 March 2016

This piece explains the research that concludes that no matter how the message is put it still doesn't seem to resonate with a lot of the public who remain stubbornly sceptical. I am not surprised as their problem is that the "message" simply doesn't accord with what they see of the actual climate.

Saturday, 12 March 2016

Luckily I live in the UK where free speech is still just about allowed, but across the Atlantic it seems there are some in high places who want to limit it. I just cannot believe they will get their way. Definitely not if Donald Trump gets elected!

In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil a_ctions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”

Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled,” particularly those in the “fossil fuel industry” who supposedly have constructed a “climate denial apparatus.” Lynch is apparently following in the footsteps of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both of whom have opened up investigations of ExxonMobil for allegedly lying to the public and their shareholders about climate change.

None of the public officials involved in this abuse of the prosecutorial power of the government recognize the outrageousness of what they are doing or are urging the FBI and the Justice Department to do. They want to investigate and prosecute corporations and individuals for their opinions on an unproven scientific theory, for which there is not a consensus, despite inaccurate claims to the contrary.

This not only represents a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours, it is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment. Will the FBI’s possible investigation include going after dissenting scientists who publish articles or give speeches questioning the global climate change hypothesis?

Will legislators who engage in blasphemy by refusing to recognize a scientific theory as fact and pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions be investigated, too?

The absurdity of this would be laughable if it were not so serious and so dangerous. The very idea that the FBI, the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States, has had a referral from the attorney general of the United State to investigate whether those who disagree with the climate change theory meet the legal “criteria for which” the Justice Department “could take action” is evocative of Franz Kafka’s chilling novel, “The Trial.”

As I have noted before, this is also reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those whom he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Both Lynch and Whitehouse might want to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.

Or perhaps General Lynch should review the Inquisition’s persecution of Galileo Galilei for disagreeing with the consensus of his time and advocating the Copernican theory of the universe.

Friday, 11 March 2016

This article looks at the way the market has been wrecked by the presence of subsidised wind and solar. Hence we are now seeing acceleration of increasing prices with subsidies required for all types of power station including what should be highly competitive gas. It really is amazing how easily the government intervention has destroyed what used to be a free market.

Thursday, 10 March 2016

Melanie Phillips The Times, 4 March 2016Overplaying the threat to coral reefs is just the latest example of ideology distorting research According to a new study, scientists’ claims that coral reefs are doomed by ocean acidification are overplayed. An “inherent bias” in scientific journals, says the editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science, has excluded research showing marine creatures are not being damaged.

Instead, he says, many studies have used flawed methods by subjecting such creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never happen in real life. No surprises there. The claim that CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans is a favourite of climate-change alarmists.

Man-made global warming theory has been propped up by studies that many scientists have dismissed as methodologically flawed, ideologically bent or even fraudulent. The problem of scientific integrity, however, goes far wider. Psychology, neuroscience, physics and other scientific areas have been convulsed by revelations of dodgy research.

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

One reason is that cash-strapped universities, competing for money and talent, exert huge pressure on academics to publish more and more to meet the box-ticking criteria set by grant-funding bodies. Corners are being cut and mistakes being made.

But whatever happened to peer-review, the supposed kitemark of scientific integrity produced by the collective judgment of other researchers? Well, that seems to have gone south too. In 1998 Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes to more than 200 of the BMJ’s regular reviewers. Not one picked out all the mistakes. On average, they reported fewer than two; some did not spot any.

The problem lies with research itself. The cornerstone of scientific authority rests on the notion that replicating an experiment will produce the same result. If replication fails, the research is deemed flawed. But failure to replicate is widespread. In 2012, the OECD spent $59 billion on biomedical research, nearly double the 2000 figure. Yet an official at America’s National Institutes of Health has said researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings.

A 2005 study by John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, said the majority of published research findings were probably false. At most, no more than about one in four findings from early-phase clinical trials would be true; epidemiological studies might have only a one in five chance of being true. “Empirical evidence on expert opinion”, he wrote, “shows that it is extremely unreliable”.

Underlying much of this disarray is surely the pressure to conform to an idea, whether political, commercial or ideological. Ideological fads produce financial and professional incentives to conform and punishment for dissent, whether loss of grant-funding or lack of advancement. As Professor Ioannidis observed: “For many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” […]

Underlying this loss of scientific bearings is a closed intellectual circle. Scientists pose as secular priests. They alone, they claim, hold the keys to the universe. Those who aren’t scientists merely express uneducated opinion. The resulting absence of openness and transparency is proving the scientists’ undoing. In the words of Richard Horton, “science has taken a turn towards darkness”. But science defines modernity. It is our gold standard of truth and reason. This is the darkness of the West too.

Wednesday, 9 March 2016

Below is the information sent to me about another forthcoming Climate Change Conference. What amazes me is that so many people and/or organisations are prepared to pay to come and speak at these events, let alone those who simply attend it to listen to all that propaganda. I was very slightly tempted to write in and offer to be a speaker, but I would not have the slightest chance of being accepted, unless I lied and pretended I was going to talk about the enormous risks the climate change posed. Anyway there is no way I would pay money to listen to all that guff. Did you notice that the London Museum of Archaeology are sending a speaker. What on earth has that got to do with climate change?

We are pleased to announce that the 3rd London Planning for Climate Change Conference will take place on the 2nd June 2016. This Conference Series is the ideal forum in which to discuss and debate the issues that face communities and economies when it comes to planning and adapting to the problems faced by growing global climate change. So far we have speakers from the Following organisations (full paper details can be found on the website planforclimatechange.co.uk)

Oxford University.

Zero Waste Scotland.

Cardiff University.

Aylesbury Vale Council.

Baylor University.

Lee International.

Università Iuav di Venezia.

London Museum of Archaeology.

Aberdeen University.

Salford University.

Internal Drainage Board.

JBA Associates.

If you are interested in being a Speaker please contact us with a title /abstract and we will consider you as a speaker. Delegate places can also now be booked for the Conference in June.

The cost to attend as a Speaker / Delegate is set competitively for 2016 and is as follows:

FACEBOOK has removed posts and suspended the page of a journalist covering a controversial court case after a targeted campaign by anti-fracking activists.

UPDATE - Facebook back down and we have succeeded in beating the censorship organized by anti-fracking activists.

Journalist and filmmaker Phelim McAleer has condemned Facebook for allowing the censorship of posts that are court reports of an important case. The attacks on the FrackNation page started as McAleer's posts on the alleged Dimock Water Pollution trial proved popular and revealed just how weak the case is.

Dimock is the village in Pennsylvania which has been described as the "ground zero" of fracking pollution. It has featured in documentaries such as Gasland and hundreds of other national and international media articles.

Phelim McAleer, the director of the FrackNation documentary, is the only reporter permanently covering the case and his reports on the FrackNation Facebook page, before the page was shut down, revealed there was almost no evidence to back up the allegations in the lawsuit.

It is McAleer's extensive and detailed coverage that has infuriated anti-fracking activists who have been using the Dimock case as a centerpiece of their campaigns.

McAleer said the attack on his articles and videos was an attempt to censor the truth.

"Bit by bit- it is coming out that there is no truth to the Dimock allegations. I was posting many articles showing how weak the case was often just using the plaintiffs words and admissions under oath," McAleer said.

"As they have watched the case collapse anti-fracking activists have become ever more determined to censor my reports and prevent the truth from gaining a wider audience," he added.

Activists have launched a concerted campaign labelling McAleer's reports as "inappropriate content" therefore prompting Facebook to remove them. McAleer's page has now been reported so often that the page was suspended for 24 hours over the weekend.

McAleer has condemned Facebook for removing the posts and suspending the page.

"This is about justice and a high profile court case about a matter of public importance. Facebook are censoring court reports because one side does not like what is coming out under oath. They are now helping coverup the truth. This needs to stop, they need to republish the deleted posts and lift the threat hanging over the page."

Two Dimock families are suing Cabot Oil and Gas, a Texas company in a case that had gained worldwide publicity as an example of pollution following fracking.

MCALEER'S BIOPhelim McAleer is a filmmaker and investigative journalist. He most recently produced and directed FrackNation - a documentary to uncover the truth about Fracking. He has produced documentaries for CBC (Canada) and RTE (Ireland) and two independent feature length documentaries. Before becoming a filmmaker, Phelim was a foreign correspondent for the Financial Times in Eastern Europe. He also covered Romania and Bulgaria for The Economist. Before that he covered Ireland for the UK Sunday Times. He has worked as a filmmaker and journalist in many countries including Romania, Uganda, Madagascar, Bulgaria, Chile, Indonesia, Canada and China. McAleer has appeared on or is a regular contributor to an array of international media organizations including Fox News, CNN and the BBC. He has been interviewed on over 100 US and international radio shows.

Monday, 7 March 2016

This article looks at a new report from The Lancet with some extreme claims in it. Project Fear applies in many areas of politics such as the EU referendum, but it is also prevalent in the climate debate.

Sunday, 6 March 2016

University of Alabama Huntsville, 1 March 2016 By a statistically significant amount, February 2016 was the warmest month in the satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Interestingly, however, that record might have as much to do with an extraordinarily warm month in the Arctic as it does with warming caused by the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.

Globally, the average temperature anomaly in February (+0.83 C) was warmer than the previous record set in April 1998 (+0.74 C) during the so-called “El Niño of the century.”

In the Northern Hemisphere, the February anomaly (+1.17 C) was a full 0.32 C (0.58 F) warmer than the previous NH record (+0.85 C) set in April 1998. Temperatures in the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere were not at record levels in February.

While the Arctic temperature anomaly is large, big temperature swings in the Arctic region aren’t unusual, especially during the winter months. Those swings are also normally somewhat transient, so the extra heat represented in February could dissipate over the next few weeks. If that happens, it doesn’t appear the heat from the El Niño by itself will be enough to continue pushing temperatures to new records later in the year, in which case this February anomaly might stand out as a singular spike in the dataset rather than part of an ongoing trend.

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in February was over north central Russia, near the small town of Beloyarsky. February temperatures there averaged 5.20 C (about 9.36 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in February was over the Sea of Okhotsk, between the Russian mainland and the Kamchatka Peninsula, where the average February 2016 temperature was 3.25 C (about 5.85 degrees F) cooler than normal for February.

Saturday, 5 March 2016

This video gives an interesting look at the effect of the El Nino that has just been occurring in the Pacific. It seems that the future course of global warming will depend on the next two or three years.

Friday, 4 March 2016

Science Daily, 16 January 2016 Coccolithophores — tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web — have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period.

This finding was diametrically opposed to what scientists had expected since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate, which is becoming more difficult as the ocean becomes more acidic and pH is reduced.

These findings were reported in the November 26th edition of Science and based on analysis of nearly a half century of data collected by the long-running Sir Alister Hardy Foundation (SAHFOS) Continuous Plankton Recorder sampling program.

“The results show both the power of long-term time-series of ocean observations for deciphering how marine microbial communities are responding to climate change and offer evidence that the ocean garden is changing,” said Dr. William Balch, senior research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences and a co-author of the paper. “We never expected to see the relative abundance of coccolithophores to increase 10 times in the North Atlantic over barely half a century. If anything, we expected that these sensitive calcifying algae would have decreased in the face of increasing ocean acidification (associated with increasing carbon dioxide entering the ocean from the burning of fossil-fuels). Instead, we see how these carbon-limited organisms appear to be using the extra carbon from CO2 to increase their relative abundance by an order of magnitude.

“This provides one example on how marine communities across an entire ocean basin are responding to increasing carbon dioxide levels. Such real-life examples of the impact of increasing CO2 on marine food webs are important to point out as the world comes together in Paris next week at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change,” Balch added.

Thursday, 3 March 2016

By Matt RidleyGlobal Warming Policy Foundation, 15 June 2010 As part of an `interview’ with me, New Scientist published a critique by five scientists of two pages of my book The Rational Optimist. Despite its tone, this critique only confirms the accuracy of each of the statements in this section of the book. After reading their critiques, I stand even more firmly behind my conclusion that the threats to coral reefs from both man-made warming and ocean acidification are unlikely to be severe, rapid or urgent. In the case of acidification, this is underlined by a recent paper, published since my book was written, summarising the results of 372 papers and concluding that ocean acidification `may not be the widespread problem conjured into the 21st century’. The burden of proof is on those who see an urgent threat to corals from warming and acidification. […]

In conclusion, I rest my case. My five critics have not only failed to contradict, but have explicitly confirmed the truth of every single one of my factual statements. We differ only in how we interpret the facts. It is hardly surprising that my opinion is not shared by five scientists whose research grants depend on funding agencies being persuaded that there will be a severe and rapid impact of carbon dioxide emissions on coral reefs in coming decades. I merely report accurately that the latest empirical and theoretical research suggests that the likely impact has been exaggerated.

Wednesday, 2 March 2016

NASDAQ, 19 February 2016 Mary-Lynn Cesar for Kapitall Wire High gas prices tend to be good news for electric cars and hybrids. In March 2012, gas averaged $3.92 a gallon , bringing it uncomfortably close to the record $4-plus peak seen in 2008. That same month, Toyota (TM) and General Motors (GM) reported record sales for the Prius hybrid and Chevrolet Volt hybrid-electric car , respectively. Today, however, the nationwide average gas price for February is below $2.00 per gallon . Now that gas prices are at record lows, the argument that these eco-friendly vehicles save consumers money at the pump seems weak. A look at last year's car-sales data reveals that Americans are increasingly gravitating toward pickup trucks and SUVs, which, while improving their fuel consumption, are still less fuel-efficient than electric cars and hybrids. In 2015, car makers sold an unprecedented 17.5 million vehicles , up 5.7% from the prior year and 0.4% from the record set in 2000. According to Kelley Blue Book, more than half of all transactions comprised truck and SUV sales, driving up the average sales price to $34,428 .

Several factors contributed to last year's uptick in car purchases: increased employment, low interest rates (which means better deals on auto financing) and cheap gas. Apparently, these trends haven't extended their benefits to electric and hybrid cars: per InsideEVs, overall electric vehicle sales declined year-over-year between 2014 and 2015, falling 5.2% from 122,438 to 116,099 . According to data from HybridCars.com, hybrid sales plummeted 14.9% from 451,702 in 2014 to 384,404 in 2015.

December was a great month for electric cars. However, as HybridCars.com points out , this is standard for the industry, as many consumers hurry to buy eco-friendly cars at the end of the year in order to qualify for tax credits. Per InsideEVs, a record 13,699 electric cars were sold that month, a 5.1% increase from a year earlier. HybridCars.com reports that Tesla's (TSLA) Model S was responsible for the bulk of electric car sales in December, although the carmaker doesn't release monthly sales figures.

While low gas prices have allowed Americans to return to gas-guzzling behemoths, there may still be hope for electric cars and vehicles. If gas nears $4 a gallon in the future, history suggests consumers will once again flock to the Prius, Leaf, Model S and other electrified cars.

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have confirmed what many in the energy world already knew: Without government support or high taxes, green energy will never be able to compete with conventional, more reliable power plants.

The study, announced by MIT’s News Office Wednesday, determined that conventional energy would be consistently less expensive than green energy over the next 10 years. The study concludes that the government could make green energy competitive by offering enormous amounts of taxpayer support.

“Windmills, solar panels, and ethanol could not compete with coal, natural gas, and oil without mandates and subsidies even when the price of the conventional fuels was relatively high,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now that prices for fossil fuels have plummeted, very little new renewable energy capacity will be installed unless the mandates and the subsidies are raised even higher. The bankruptcy this week of Abengoa’s U. S. solar unit with up to $10 billion in debt is a sign of things to come.”

The MIT study also noted that solar and wind power are more than twice as expensive as natural gas, and tax on carbon dioxide emissions could increase electricity prices enough for green sources to compete. Even environmental groups such as The Sierra Club worry increasingly cheap energy will make the case for green power weaker.

“Wind and solar can’t compete with conventional sources on their own merits,” Chris Warren, a spokesperson for the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “That’s why the national environmental lobby and their allies are peddling the idea of a carbon tax. They want to punish the use of natural gas, oil and, coal to make their preferred sources appear more profitable. In practice, a carbon tax would have a devastating impact on American families already struggling in the Obama economy–hurting the poor and middle class the most.”

Translate

Remember when our leaders told us they were certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? They are the same people who now say CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic weather. Politicians tell us what they want us to believe.

WELCOME TO A SANE LOOK AT CLIMATE SCIENCE

"Global warming" could be the most costly scare story in the history of man. It is hysterical alarm built on exaggeration and deceit, fuelled by those with a vested interest.Please use the search facility at the top left of the site to find specific articles among over 3600 on the site. Some suggested key topics: clouds, biofuels, hurricanes, windpower, global cooling, emissions, arctic, antarctic, zero carbon, stars, aussies, china, sun, Gore, schools, IPCC, NIPCC, climate models, hockey stick, trust in science.

ARGUMENTS THAT NO WARMIST CAN WIN

Below are two irrefutable arguments that should be top of any climate sceptic's list.

RECENT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORD

Click here. To see a graph of both surface and satellite temperature; or here for satellite temperature record. Here for satellite records of various sections of the globe. Google Earth global temperatures are here

Followers

SIGN THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION TODAY

Sign HERE for common sense on climate. You can see the massive propaganda behind the "global warming" theory, so please stand up and be counted!

About Me

I have a BSc Honours degree in Applied Chemistry. After working in detergent research for a short while I then spent 17 years teaching science. Following that I ran my own successful property company with my wife Andrea. I am currently a New Forest District Councillor. I was involved in the campaign to try to keep Al Gore's political propaganda film out of English schools.
I have three grown up sons and six grandchildren. Three have now left school while the others are currently (2017) aged 1,7 and 9. I see them regularly and take a great interest in their education.